THE STATE SMALL-HOLDINGS 73 



holders with a fixed tenure, since as leaseholders I do 

 not suppose that they would be called on to pay much, 

 if anything, less than they do now under a system by 

 which they purchase a holding in about a hundred 

 years. 



Of course there remains the problem of the rise 

 in the price of land owing to the demand that is thus 

 created. But if a change were made from freehold to 

 leasehold, the land would still have to be found some- 

 where by Government or other public bodies, and 

 therefore, without the aid of an Expropriation Act, in a 

 country like Denmark where it is so limited in extent, 

 would still rise in value. The point for present con- 

 sideration, therefore, is whether the State small-holder 

 does or does not succeed as an agriculturist. To 

 me the answer seems to be that undoubtedly he does 

 to a very considerable extent. 



On one subject, however, I am perfectly clear in 

 my own mind, that were it not for the elaborate Danish 

 system of co-operation he would fail miserably. By 

 V co-operation he lives and moves and has his being. 

 Also I consider that he ought to possess a good deal 

 more than a tenth of the total capital, for if this were 

 so his struggle would be much less hard and the pro- 

 portion of failures would be far fewer. These are 

 points that will have to be kept steadily in view should 

 the establishment of such a class of freeholders, or 

 even of leaseholders, aided by State money, ever come 

 up for practical consideration in Great Britain. 



One thing more. The reader of these pages may 

 say with justice that obviously there exists a great 

 body of opinion in Denmark which is altogether 

 adverse to and has not the slightest faith in the State 

 small-holding movement. This is perfectly true. I 



